Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation already flags destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds critical behavior beyond that: permanent deletion, confirmation requirement, cascading file deletion only for files the template exclusively used, and preservation of documents and PDFs still in use. This fully discloses the destructive footprint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet information-dense, with the most critical fact (permanent deletion) at the start. Every sentence adds value: irreversibility, confirmation requirement, ownership, and non-destructive edge cases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive single-parameter tool, this is complete. It covers cancellation semantics, permission level, irreversible consequences, and what is and is not affected. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a tool whose job is simply to delete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single templateId parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description references naming the template during confirmation but does not add API-level parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('deletes'), resource ('template'), and scope ('files only it was using'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like delete_document or delete_file. The permanence is front-loaded, so an agent immediately understands what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear operational guidance: confirm with the user first, name the template, and note that this is owner-only. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the tool's purpose and preconditions make when to use it clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.